[1943] EACA 67
The court held that the evidence of Nagwala, who was either an accomplice or akin to one, required corroboration before a conviction could be sustained. The accused's mere silence or non-denial of the accomplice's evidence was insufficient to amount to corroboration, especially in light of doubts cast on the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1943] EACA 67
- Parties
- Applicant: Crown; Respondent: Juma s/o Mara
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Revision Case No. 59 of 1943
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Revision / Revision
- Outcome
- acquittal
- Judges
- Lucie-Smith, J. (Kenya), Sheridan CJ
- Legal Topics
- Receiving Stolen Property, Accomplice Evidence, Corroboration, Criminal Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Crown
Applicant
Juma s/o Mara
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Revision / Revision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the evidence of the witness Nagwala, considered an accomplice or quasi-accomplice, required corroboration before convicting the accused.
- 2 Whether the accused's non-denial of the accomplice's evidence constituted sufficient corroboration to sustain a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the evidence of Nagwala, who was either an accomplice or akin to one, required corroboration before a conviction could be sustained. The accused's mere silence or non-denial of the accomplice's evidence was insufficient to amount to corroboration, especially in light of doubts cast on the authority of Rex v. Feigenbaum by subsequent case law such as Rex v. Keeling. Without corroboration in a material particular implicating the accused, the conviction could not safely stand. The court therefore directed that the accused be acquitted and released.
Court Disposition
acquittal
Orders
- The accused is acquitted.
- The accused is to be released.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
9 paragraphs
## CRIMINAL REVISION
## BEFORE SIR JOSEPH SHERIDAN, C. J., AND LUCIE-SMITH, J.
CROWN, Prosecutor ù.
## JUMA s/o MARA (Accused No. 2), Accused
## Revision Case No. 59 of 1943
Receiving stolen property—Sec. 315 (1) P. C.—Accomplice—Corroboration—Nondenial of accomplice's evidence.
Accused absent, unrepresented.
Stacey, Crown Counsel, for the Crown.
ORDER (16-4-43).—If the witness Nagwala is not an accomplice he is in our opinion very little better. We consider him to be a witness with regard to whose evidence there should have been a warning of the danger of convicting on it in the absence of corroboration and on the authority of the Court of Appeal for Eastern African, if he was an accomplice, there should have been corroboration of his evidence in some material particular implicating the accused before convicting. The accused, when called on for his defence, said that he had nothing to say and it was at first argued that this fact of non-denial of Nagwala's evidence was sufficient corroboration, Rex v. Feigenbaum (1919) 14 Cr. App. Rep. 1, being quoted in support. In that case it was held that the non-denial by an accused person of an accomplice's statement may provide the necessary corroboration. But in Rex v. Keeling, 28 Cr. App. Rep. 121, the correctness of the decision in Feigenbaum's case was doubted. In short we do not consider that a conviction can safely stand in the present case. We direct that the accused be acquitted and released.